← Back to context

Comment by Epa095

16 hours ago

Hashed, you store them hashed (and salted). A breach should never reveal passwords.

(I will be copy/paste this answer for the other comments)

My bad - I misread the post.

To clear things up: I am completely aware about how to store passwords in services that check against them. You are likely to have read some of my prose on that topic in OWASP or at a conference :)

My point, after misreading the article, was that in order to authenticate to a service (the one that holds the hashed version of that password) you need to have access to its cleartext version. This is VERY bad, should never be stored without special considerations etc.

I read the articlae as if they accessed the source of the passwords, the one used to access to services (a vault, with its encryption, access restrictions etc.). 5k was a lot but that could have been bearers or similar ones.

So my comment, and the comments to it, actually yelled at me (that's good!) the way I yell at actual implemententions sometimes :)

In all seriousness - thanks for the reaction, we need more of these. My next obsession are servies that require "only digits" or "strictly 8 to 11 chars" for credentials :)